Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

How the papers are treating LIz’s first day – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageHow the papers are treating LIz’s first day – politicalbetting.com

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • First
  • New York Times’s vendetta against Britain is bizarre
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-york-timess-vendetta-against-britain-is-bizarre-3nsb9kg3s (£££)

    Not just here then.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 16,605
    edited September 7
    I happened to read the NYT today.
    Liz Truss’s gurning visage was on the cover and she was the top story, with a double page treatment also on Page 11.

    I couldn’t really fault it.
    Maybe it’s the editorials that are problematic.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,789
    So she starts just like the clown did?
  • Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,908
    Wife went down with COVID on Monday, me today. Two more virgins bite the dust. Both just have typical flu symptoms. Really ache all over otherwise well.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    A fairly predicted day for Truss (apart from Mrs J Mercer's comment..) as I suspected Truss has shunted Rishi away... I am not sure of his reaction to this (I wouldnt rule out him leaving Parliament)... but the cracks have been well and truly papered over and I am keen to see how the govt deals with its first `unknown unknown' - public sector strikes, gas prices, Ukraine, NI Protocol are all factored in but not sure what the first real unexpected will be.. I dont underestime the Cons Party instinct for self-preservation but fighting like rats in a sack is my prediction.
  • A fairly predicted day for Truss (apart from Mrs J Mercer's comment..) as I suspected Truss has shunted Rishi away... I am not sure of his reaction to this (I wouldnt rule out him leaving Parliament)... but the cracks have been well and truly papered over and I am keen to see how the govt deals with its first `unknown unknown' - public sector strikes, gas prices, Ukraine, NI Protocol are all factored in but not sure what the first real unexpected will be.. I dont underestime the Cons Party instinct for self-preservation but fighting like rats in a sack is my prediction.

    Good morning

    Truss has rejected Johnson's attempt to install Chope on the Privilege's committee

    I am sure we can all welcome that news
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    That’s not a very meaningful stat, though, given the oil revenue has to pay for everything else, too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182
    The Trump judge story becomes yet more absurd.

    https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1567300918265397248
    I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a court reject a proposed amicus brief, especially from eminent amici like the Former GOP prosecutors Cannon just refused to hear from. That’s now several bizarre & non-judicial moves, starting w/ her first announcement of intent to grant SM.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182
    Slightly surprisingly, seems unhurt.

    Pro tip: don't shoot an SPG-9 recoiless rifle indoors.
    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1567325070246256640
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,465
    FPT
    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,666
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. kjh, hope you and your wife recover quickly.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182
    Great article.

    A Ruling Untethered to the Law
    By appointing a special master to review the Mar-a-Lago documents, Judge Aileen Cannon gave Trump the special treatment he asked for—and undermined the values of her profession.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/09/judge-cannon-trump-mar-a-lago-special-master/671349/
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,313
    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,465
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Trump judge story becomes yet more absurd.

    https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1567300918265397248
    I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a court reject a proposed amicus brief, especially from eminent amici like the Former GOP prosecutors Cannon just refused to hear from. That’s now several bizarre & non-judicial moves, starting w/ her first announcement of intent to grant SM.

    And outrageous.

    Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago
    Some seized documents were so closely held, only the president, a Cabinet-level or near-Cabinet level official could authorize others to know
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/06/trump-nuclear-documents/

    The argument that an ex- President has executive privilege over such documents doesn’t even reach the level of absurdity.

    And by law a President cannot declassify such documents on his own authority.

    Either Trump is done, or the US Constitution and rule of law are.
    I think there's sort of an intermediate path whereby Trump is done, but too slowly to matter. ie this particular hack can't actually stop the prosecution, but there will always be a tame judge somewhere who can throw some sand in the gears and slow things down. Add that to all the existing ways a spirited lawyer could delay a case and he'll almost definitely be dead, president or pardoned by another GOP president by the time a jury gets to a verdict.
  • FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    I expect there was a third one that wasn't in the reporting?

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.

    Being insufferably nerdy the kids who got into Oxford nearly always got high grades like AAA or the occasional AAB. But there were always rumours of some DGIF gigachad who got the place and then put in so little effort that they only got two E grades. If Truss decided she couldn't be arsed to show up for one of the exams that would indicate very large ladyballs and Mr Putin should be careful not to offend her any more than he already has.
    We also get Truss’ own A level results (presumably having been recently exhumed in Gavin Williamson’s Mum’s attic?) – she achieved an A in English, and A in Maths, a B in German and a C in Further Maths. Under her own plans, she would not have got a guaranteed interview (much less three!) and would most likely have not attended Oxford.

    https://wonkhe.com/blogs/what-are-conservative-leadership-candidates-saying-about-higher-education/
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886
    Nigelb said:

    The Trump judge story becomes yet more absurd.

    https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1567300918265397248
    I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a court reject a proposed amicus brief, especially from eminent amici like the Former GOP prosecutors Cannon just refused to hear from. That’s now several bizarre & non-judicial moves, starting w/ her first announcement of intent to grant SM.

    When politics and law collide, the result is usually one big mess. Add to that the specific system in the US, whereby judges and senior law enforcement officials are appointed based on political affiliation, and you end up with an even bigger mess.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    One thing that’s happily surprised me about this conflict though, is that while there might be some large countries out there who are ambivalent, Russia has almost no overt supporters. There’s not piles of Chinese weapons flowing towards Ukraine, and Putin is being forced to beg Kim Jong-Un for ammunition, as Russian stockpiles dwindle in the face of well-targeted attacks on stores in Ukraine.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 10,462

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    VVP is just following the tory plan. He has nimbly turned his back away on sclerotic Europe and is focusing on high growth areas of opportunity in Asia-Pacific and Africa. #globalrussia
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,394
    Is the Daily Mail front page real?
  • Morning all! I'm likely to only dip in and out for a few weeks as my primary client has kicked off a major new project which is taking up most of my time and energy.

    Truss? Lowest ever support of a leader amongst MPs. Lowest voted support of a leader amongst members. And she puts *that* together as a cabinet.

    This is going to be piss funny to watch. Truly is like imagining what cabinet PM John Redwood would have put together - making Braverman Gorman Home Secretary!!!!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,033

    Morning all! I'm likely to only dip in and out for a few weeks as my primary client has kicked off a major new project which is taking up most of my time and energy.

    Truss? Lowest ever support of a leader amongst MPs. Lowest voted support of a leader amongst members. And she puts *that* together as a cabinet.

    This is going to be piss funny to watch. Truly is like imagining what cabinet PM John Redwood would have put together - making Braverman Gorman Home Secretary!!!!

    Gorman?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,135

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    VVP is just following the tory plan. He has nimbly turned his back away on sclerotic Europe and is focusing on high growth areas of opportunity in Asia-Pacific and Africa. #globalrussia
    What!

    Surely the opposite. He is so desperate to gets close to the EU, he's willing to invade another country simply to get Russia's borders closer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,033
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    VVP is just following the tory plan. He has nimbly turned his back away on sclerotic Europe and is focusing on high growth areas of opportunity in Asia-Pacific and Africa. #globalrussia
    Even if that's true, he rather neglected to notice that his is an oil and gas and fraud economy. And that his biggest gas reserves are in the west of Russia, whilst the small pipeline serving China is fed from eastern reserves. And that they have no pipeline from the western oil fields to the eastern. And that the only LNG terminal for the western fields has a small capacity and is ice-blocked for much of the year..

    The 'areas of opportunity' are for the benefit of China and India, not Russia.

    He truly is a master strategist.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,465
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    This is definitely true, although the same applies to the ways the west has exerted pressure on Russia, ie if the US is able to wreck Russia's economy and military by withholding US tech, or hurt them by cutting them out of USD banking, other countries will see that and reduce their exposure to US tech and USD banking. I think it's true of coercive use of soft power generally, after you use it you have less left over.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,926
    Cabinet is meh. Not a disaster but not as strong as it should be. I’d have had TT as Foreign Sec, Kemi at Education and Penny at Home. But you need to be supremely confident in yourself to pick a Cabinet like that and I guess she’s not given her low MPs vote tally. Also don’t understand the Rees Mogg thing. He showed himself irreparably unfit for office with his attempts to turn the uk govt into a presidential system. And he’s repellant to voters. If the plan is to stop the Lib Dems in the south, putting him in charge of climate policy seems the most bizarre thing you could do.

    In other news I have written the council a very nice letter since they have asked me to explain why I want to put solar panels and battery on my garage. This is the sort of shit Truss needs to draw a line through. Time and expense for no reason other than to create a non-job at the council.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,877
    Is the Daily Star headline about the new government? If so I don't understand it.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,485

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Having revealed themselves as a highly unreliable supplier, the Russians are not likely to get the Chinese to spend several hundred billion to build a new gas lines to China either. The Chinese are no fools. The global consumption of natural gas is going to decline sharply over the coming years and Russia will face a permanently shrunken market. Meanwhile, Russian manufacturing is a dead duck and services are barely internally competitive and stand no chance internationally. A declining population, a crappy economy and the contempt of the civilized world.

    Oh, and the minor detail that they will find it very tricky to spend the cash overseas, so Rouble inflation numbers are going to be fun.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 16,465
    moonshine said:

    Cabinet is meh. Not a disaster but not as strong as it should be. I’d have had TT as Foreign Sec, Kemi at Education and Penny at Home. But you need to be supremely confident in yourself to pick a Cabinet like that and I guess she’s not given her low MPs vote tally. Also don’t understand the Rees Mogg thing. He showed himself irreparably unfit for office with his attempts to turn the uk govt into a presidential system. And he’s repellant to voters. If the plan is to stop the Lib Dems in the south, putting him in charge of climate policy seems the most bizarre thing you could do.

    In other news I have written the council a very nice letter since they have asked me to explain why I want to put solar panels and battery on my garage. This is the sort of shit Truss needs to draw a line through. Time and expense for no reason other than to create a non-job at the council.

    WTF was also my initial response to the Rees Mogg thing. OTOH your last paragraph makes me think: If Truss's main policy lever of choice is deregulation, and fast renewables build-out is the answer to basically all the current problems foreign and domestic, isn't it good to put a right-wing deregulator in charge of it? It'll give them some cover from the Faragists when they bitch about the windmills spoiling their view.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,135
    edited September 7
    Worth bearing in mind that when Truss took her A Levels, A grades at A level were rarer than they are now - and about half what they were at their peak (though still well above the historical

    https://www.alansmithers.com/reports/AL2014.pdf

  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,010

    Morning all! I'm likely to only dip in and out for a few weeks as my primary client has kicked off a major new project which is taking up most of my time and energy.

    Truss? Lowest ever support of a leader amongst MPs. Lowest voted support of a leader amongst members. And she puts *that* together as a cabinet.

    This is going to be piss funny to watch. Truly is like imagining what cabinet PM John Redwood would have put together - making Braverman Gorman Home Secretary!!!!

    'Most of my time and energy '? Good news, Liz is going to help you with your energy 👍
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 766

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 2,852
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

  • CiceroCicero Posts: 1,485
    Am I alone in thinking that, while not as simply godawful as Johnson´s last cabinet, Truss´s first cabinet has a high number of what might politely be called oddballs? Rees Mogg of course is almost picture-book socially inept, amongst his many other issues, while a large number of the rest are quite remarkably beige- dull plodders with dull hinterlands.

    Truss has rewarded loyalty, not talent, and that could be her first and biggest mistake. Ideologically inflexible, with still too many public school types, a cabinet of such dullards is going to try the patience of the voters quite quickly, I fear.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,293
    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886
    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    Sadly, it sounds like most on that list have refused to serve, rather than the PM failed to offer them a position.

    Yes, the Sunakites are going to be a problem, as was obvious from their uncharacteristically vicious campaign against Truss over the past two months.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591
    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    It is the same playbook as when Johnson first purged all the Mayites, then deselected any Tory Remainers. The first move has always to assemble a clique of loyalists, and to exile opponents to the backbenches or out of Parliament all together.

    Truss is the most ideologically driven PM in memory, perhaps since Attlee. Thatcher was tempered by pragmatism and kept significant opponents in the cabinet almost to the end.

    It is going to be a rough ride. It is very hard to see the hard right economics being compatible with £100 billion in energy subsidies.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520

    Worth bearing in mind that when Truss took her A Levels, A grades at A level were rarer than they are now - and about half what they were at their peak (though still well above the historical

    https://www.alansmithers.com/reports/AL2014.pdf

    Thanks for the graph, I was wondering about that. A grade C in Further Maths does still rather dent the image of Liz "Mathmo" Truss, though. Albeit in the world of politicians and political journalists simply using a calculator the right way up puts you in the most mathematically able quartile.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 6,864
    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,598
    In the morning after I am torn between two thoughts.

    1) this is a mediocre setup, politics returns to normal and the government has lost its Teflon quality. Labours job got easier.
    2) The internal Tory politics reminds me of GoT season 1. The fat king is gone, the hand to the king dead, his supporters purged, JRMs little finger remains and the somewhat unhinged Joffrey aka Truss ascended the throne surrounded by sycophants.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591

    Worth bearing in mind that when Truss took her A Levels, A grades at A level were rarer than they are now - and about half what they were at their peak (though still well above the historical

    https://www.alansmithers.com/reports/AL2014.pdf

    Thanks for the graph, I was wondering about that. A grade C in Further Maths does still rather dent the image of Liz "Mathmo" Truss, though. Albeit in the world of politicians and political journalists simply using a calculator the right way up puts you in the most mathematically able quartile.
    Are you suggesting the rest are boobies?

  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 4,121
    edited September 7
    I would be tempted to say we’ve seen a net improvement in the cabinet given the departure of Dorries and Patel, but then we have the Braverman and JRM promotions so it probably works out as neutral.

    PMQs today: will be fascinating to see how LT plays it. I suspect it will be the usual unconvincing waffle but it would be refreshing if she actually went in with a straight bat.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    The Trump judge story becomes yet more absurd.

    https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1567300918265397248
    I don’t believe that I’ve ever seen a court reject a proposed amicus brief, especially from eminent amici like the Former GOP prosecutors Cannon just refused to hear from. That’s now several bizarre & non-judicial moves, starting w/ her first announcement of intent to grant SM.

    And outrageous.

    Material on foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities seized at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago
    Some seized documents were so closely held, only the president, a Cabinet-level or near-Cabinet level official could authorize others to know
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/06/trump-nuclear-documents/

    The argument that an ex- President has executive privilege over such documents doesn’t even reach the level of absurdity.

    And by law a President cannot declassify such documents on his own authority.

    Either Trump is done, or the US Constitution and rule of law are.
    I think there's sort of an intermediate path whereby Trump is done, but too slowly to matter. ie this particular hack can't actually stop the prosecution, but there will always be a tame judge somewhere who can throw some sand in the gears and slow things down. Add that to all the existing ways a spirited lawyer could delay a case and he'll almost definitely be dead, president or pardoned by another GOP president by the time a jury gets to a verdict.
    I don't see that's possible.
    There are only two stages of appeal for this - the 11th Circuit, and the Supreme Court.

    This is nothing to do with 'spirited lawyers' - Trump's are uniformly crap anyway - but rather about a judge just making shit up.

    It gives right to the heart if the Constitution, and can't quietly be delayed until everyone forgets about it.

  • eekeek Posts: 21,811
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    Sadly, it sounds like most on that list have refused to serve, rather than the PM failed to offer them a position.

    Yes, the Sunakites are going to be a problem, as was obvious from their uncharacteristically vicious campaign against Truss over the past two months.
    The Sunakites highlight a fundamental difference within the party regarding economics.

    For the last 7 years a lot of people have laughed at the modern monetary theory policy that Corbyn and co would have implemented if they had won an election. Yet that appears to be Truss’s approach to economics and worse she is ignoring 12 years of evidence that low corporate tax rates do not generate corporate investment - instead companies seek to maximise short term profits while tax rates are low…
  • Chris said:

    Is the Daily Star headline about the new government? If so I don't understand it.

    The Daily Star has often described and displayed Boris as a clown. Today this is used to illustrate their story that there is a shortage of clowns owing to Brexit restrictions.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591
    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    When I applied to Medical School in the early Eighties the standard offer varied from CCC to BBB in most places. My offer was BBC, though I actually got AAAB.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,591

    Chris said:

    Is the Daily Star headline about the new government? If so I don't understand it.

    The Daily Star has often described and displayed Boris as a clown. Today this is used to illustrate their story that there is a shortage of clowns owing to Brexit restrictions.
    Finally a Brexit benefit! I cannot stand them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,886
    Cicero said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Having revealed themselves as a highly unreliable supplier, the Russians are not likely to get the Chinese to spend several hundred billion to build a new gas lines to China either. The Chinese are no fools. The global consumption of natural gas is going to decline sharply over the coming years and Russia will face a permanently shrunken market. Meanwhile, Russian manufacturing is a dead duck and services are barely internally competitive and stand no chance internationally. A declining population, a crappy economy and the contempt of the civilized world.

    Oh, and the minor detail that they will find it very tricky to spend the cash overseas, so Rouble inflation numbers are going to be fun.
    Add to that, the hundreds of thousands of high-earners, academics, bankers and entrepreneurs, who have got the Hell out of Dodge, and probably won’t be coming back.

    It does take time for these things to have the full effect, but the Russian economy is slowly being hollowed-out from within. It won’t take too long before factories and farms shut, for lack of capital equipment and raw materials.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 19,598
    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,293

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
    My son got the equivalent of 4A*s in the Scottish equivalent to A levels and I suspect he was not that unusual in his cohort. IIRC his offer was A*AA. This is what the great inflation has done.
  • In 2019, Jacob Rees Mogg was considered so voter repellent by the Tories that he was not allowed near TV cameras during the election campaign. As BEIS secretary he is going to be popping up regularly. He'll almost certainly prove to be a major Labour asset. Right now, there is no shadow BEIS secretary, it's split between Jonathan Reynolds and Ed Miliband. That should change. Now that Truss has massively downgraded levelling up, I think Lisa Nandy would be the strongest option
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,293
    Therese Coffey as DPM. Probably most famous for her karoke nights and removing the £20 extra on UC after Covid. It is an astonishing rise, it really is. Without trace barely starts to cover it. Still, the Tories have always had a soft spot for female Chemistry graduates.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    On topic: is the answer like the miracle it truly is?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,926

    moonshine said:

    Cabinet is meh. Not a disaster but not as strong as it should be. I’d have had TT as Foreign Sec, Kemi at Education and Penny at Home. But you need to be supremely confident in yourself to pick a Cabinet like that and I guess she’s not given her low MPs vote tally. Also don’t understand the Rees Mogg thing. He showed himself irreparably unfit for office with his attempts to turn the uk govt into a presidential system. And he’s repellant to voters. If the plan is to stop the Lib Dems in the south, putting him in charge of climate policy seems the most bizarre thing you could do.

    In other news I have written the council a very nice letter since they have asked me to explain why I want to put solar panels and battery on my garage. This is the sort of shit Truss needs to draw a line through. Time and expense for no reason other than to create a non-job at the council.

    WTF was also my initial response to the Rees Mogg thing. OTOH your last paragraph makes me think: If Truss's main policy lever of choice is deregulation, and fast renewables build-out is the answer to basically all the current problems foreign and domestic, isn't it good to put a right-wing deregulator in charge of it? It'll give them some cover from the Faragists when they bitch
    about the windmills spoiling their view.
    Thanks you’ve cheered me up with your generous interpretation. Don’t judge until there’s something to judge!
  • I would be tempted to say we’ve seen a net improvement in the cabinet given the departure of Dorries and Patel, but then we have the Braverman and JRM promotions so it probably works out as neutral.

    PMQs today: will be fascinating to see how LT plays it. I suspect it will be the usual unconvincing waffle but it would be refreshing if she actually went in with a straight bat.

    My guess is that she will be a bit hyped up and may stumble on her learned lines a few times. But she'll be fine. Starmer will almost certainly ask her to support a windfall tax as part of the energy cap package, so she'll have something prepared for that.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438
    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,572
    edited September 7
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    Sadly, it sounds like most on that list have refused to serve, rather than the PM failed to offer them a position.

    Yes, the Sunakites are going to be a problem, as was obvious from their uncharacteristically vicious campaign against Truss over the past two months.
    The Sunakites highlight a fundamental difference within the party regarding economics.

    For the last 7 years a lot of people have laughed at the modern monetary theory policy that Corbyn and co would have implemented if they had won an election. Yet that appears to be Truss’s approach to economics and worse she is ignoring 12 years of evidence that low corporate tax rates do not generate corporate investment - instead companies seek to maximise short term profits while tax rates are low…
    'Your package from Amazon SARL' would like a word.
  • DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    No Patel is not a problem. Sunak and hunt were never going to get an invite. Gove and Javid are the big losses on the ability front. Shapps was always a very effective media performer. I wonder who the go-to person will be in the new Cabinet.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520
    Ukraine judged to have made advances in three different Oblasts yesterday: Kherson, Kharkiv and Donetsk.

    Very promising.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1567314439648563201
  • rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,293

    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    No Patel is not a problem. Sunak and hunt were never going to get an invite. Gove and Javid are the big losses on the ability front. Shapps was always a very effective media performer. I wonder who the go-to person will be in the new Cabinet.

    Yes, every government needs a Minister for the Today program and he filled that role better than most.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    DavidL said:

    Therese Coffey as DPM. Probably most famous for her karoke nights and removing the £20 extra on UC after Covid. It is an astonishing rise, it really is. Without trace barely starts to cover it. Still, the Tories have always had a soft spot for female Chemistry graduates.

    During her later time at DWP she refused to publish a series of commissioned reports (five I think) on the state of the welfare system with respect to vulnerable and disabled users. Rumour has it they were very damning and the select committee wants to see them published.

    Be interesting to see what Smith makes of them.

    Eventually they will leak. She may well just want to get them out and dealt with properly.
  • Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    He'll go with the Windfall Tax. Labour will want to ensure as many people as possible understand that the Truss plan essentially means a huge, taxpayer-funded bung to energy companies.

    He will be accused of mansplaining by Truss supporters. Truss may even stumble over some kind of caustic, pre-prepared comment to that effect, too.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,520
    Jonathan said:

    So how does SKS handle PMQs. Clearly the Tories will be noisy and excited. I would imagine some choice quotes from the campaign, intertwined with some points of detail that the PM might struggle with might be the best route to dent the party. What’s her Achilles heal?

    According to the polls, the public's three priorities are the energy crisis, the economy and climate change.

    Liz Truss' three priorities according to her speech yesterday are the economy, the energy crisis and the NHS. And she's put Rees-Mogg in charge of climate change policy.

    Attack her on climate change, and it's link to the energy crisis. Also on the general decay in the public realm, such as delays to criminal trials, created by twelve years of Tory cuts. The key thing is to tie Truss to the accumulated defects and mistakes of twelve years of Tory government, rather than allow her to present herself as [another] fresh start, not responsible for the problems inherited from the Cameron, May and Johnson governments.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,572
    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,293
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    It is the same playbook as when Johnson first purged all the Mayites, then deselected any Tory Remainers. The first move has always to assemble a clique of loyalists, and to exile opponents to the backbenches or out of Parliament all together.

    Truss is the most ideologically driven PM in memory, perhaps since Attlee. Thatcher was tempered by pragmatism and kept significant opponents in the cabinet almost to the end.

    It is going to be a rough ride. It is very hard to see the hard right economics being compatible with £100 billion in energy subsidies.
    It seems that the public purse is wide open. I am not sure that is right wing economics. Was it not Reagan who said that a billion here and a billion there and soon enough you are talking about serious money?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,575
    DavidL said:

    Therese Coffey as DPM. Probably most famous for her karoke nights and removing the £20 extra on UC after Covid. It is an astonishing rise, it really is. Without trace barely starts to cover it. Still, the Tories have always had a soft spot for female Chemistry graduates.

    TC has some overlaps with Ann Widdecombe characterwise.

  • I would be tempted to say we’ve seen a net improvement in the cabinet given the departure of Dorries and Patel, but then we have the Braverman and JRM promotions so it probably works out as neutral.

    PMQs today: will be fascinating to see how LT plays it. I suspect it will be the usual unconvincing waffle but it would be refreshing if she actually went in with a straight bat.

    My guess is that she will be a bit hyped up and may stumble on her learned lines a few times. But she'll be fine. Starmer will almost certainly ask her to support a windfall tax as part of the energy cap package, so she'll have something prepared for that.

    I'd expect Conservative backbenchers to support Truss by barracking Starmer. However, it might be a mistake as it will likely put off her. This favourite tactic of the blue team was dropped for the first part of Boris's time, though lately reintroduced, possibly because by then he'd given up any attempt to answer Starmer's questions. From what we've seen of Liz Truss debating, or speaking in Downing Street yesterday, it looks like she is easily perturbed.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,757
    edited September 7
    DavidL said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
    My son got the equivalent of 4A*s in the Scottish equivalent to A levels and I suspect he was not that unusual in his cohort. IIRC his offer was A*AA. This is what the great inflation has done.
    At this point, your reminder that Liz Truss was one of the people in charge of reforming exams.

    Of the others, one was Dominic Cummings, who believes the correct way to test his eyesight is by driving a two-ton killing machine on a sixty mile round trip to a beauty spot, another was Michael Gove, who talks about blobs, and a third was Amanda Spielmann, who told the Education Select Committee that teenage girls being blackmailed for nude selfies should not be seen as a safeguarding issue.

    If we get the government we deserve, boy we must have done some bad shit.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,680
    Nigelb said:

    Slightly surprisingly, seems unhurt.

    Pro tip: don't shoot an SPG-9 recoiless rifle indoors.
    https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1567325070246256640

    Was the same in NI when PIRA got hold of shoulder launched weapons which they began by firing from indoors enclosed spaces and then learned a big overpressure lesson.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,293

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    Taiwan doesn't need permission. They have more than the technological base to produce their own. All they need is the will.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,346
    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    When I applied to Medical School in the early Eighties the standard offer varied from CCC to BBB in most places. My offer was BBC, though I actually got AAAB.
    I did the Oxford entrance exam in November/December 1991 and was given a 2 ‘E’ offer after interview. I took that as an invitation and spent the rest of the Sixth Form getting pissed.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,757
    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.
    Isn't there a suspicion it already has?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,192
    Unsurprising perhaps, but both Parris and the Fink have columns in The Times today predicting disaster.

    At a time like this a political columnist like me finds himself in a quandary. For months I’ve been arguing with energy and vehemence against the decision the Tory membership made on Monday. I’ve derided the person they chose and predicted her failure. I can hardly pretend not to believe now that this is likely to end horribly.

    and

    My problem with Liz Truss is not that she is dim, as some people incorrectly suggest. Or that she is wooden, when her capturing of the leadership suggests she has strong persuasive skills. Or that she is unlikeable, when I have always found her anything but. It is that I don’t think she is right to suggest we can simply cut taxes, increase spending and as a result produce growth. I don’t think she is correct to ally herself to the right of the Conservative Party. And a policy of no U-turns is only a good one if you are going in the right direction.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,757
    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    When I applied to Medical School in the early Eighties the standard offer varied from CCC to BBB in most places. My offer was BBC, though I actually got AAAB.
    I did the Oxford entrance exam in November/December 1991 and was given a 2 ‘E’ offer after interview. I took that as an invitation and spent the rest of the Sixth Form getting pissed.

    An Oxford graduate with bad grades who drinks heavily?

    How did you miss out on a career at the DfE sir?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,575

    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    For the new government this is day one of the new football season so to speak. No games, no points. The auguries are not great for obvious reasons.

    But after Boris etc, there is that interesting opportunity which will hardly last long for gaining a reputation for the things which most voters would prioritise at the moment:

    Clarity, competence, honesty, unity, moderation, purpose, plan, consistency, principle.

    I am not holding my breath, but the next couple of months will be interesting.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,346
    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    When I applied to Medical School in the early Eighties the standard offer varied from CCC to BBB in most places. My offer was BBC, though I actually got AAAB.
    I did the Oxford entrance exam in November/December 1991 and was given a 2 ‘E’ offer after interview. I took that as an invitation and spent the rest of the Sixth Form getting pissed.

    An Oxford graduate with bad grades who drinks heavily?

    How did you miss out on a career at the DfE sir?
    I don’t drink nearly as much now, not since I developed my coke habit anyway.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,757
    DougSeal said:

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    When I applied to Medical School in the early Eighties the standard offer varied from CCC to BBB in most places. My offer was BBC, though I actually got AAAB.
    I did the Oxford entrance exam in November/December 1991 and was given a 2 ‘E’ offer after interview. I took that as an invitation and spent the rest of the Sixth Form getting pissed.

    An Oxford graduate with bad grades who drinks heavily?

    How did you miss out on a career at the DfE sir?
    I don’t drink nearly as much now, not since I developed my coke habit anyway.

    So you would have been better suited to the Department of Health?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,438

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.

    The Chinese would not allow that to happen. And for that reason, I doubt the Americans would either.

    It was three quarters of a century ago that the US first built a nuclear weapon. The Taiwanese are a wealthy and high tech nation, with a decent domestic weapons industry, and an excellent electronics one. They also have three nuclear reactors, capable of generating fissionable material.

    I don't believe China could prevent Taiwan from getting a nuclear weapon. The US could, I'm sure put enormous pressure on them not to get one. But whether they would heed that pressure or not, is another matter.
  • Morning all! I'm likely to only dip in and out for a few weeks as my primary client has kicked off a major new project which is taking up most of my time and energy.

    Truss? Lowest ever support of a leader amongst MPs. Lowest voted support of a leader amongst members. And she puts *that* together as a cabinet.

    This is going to be piss funny to watch. Truly is like imagining what cabinet PM John Redwood would have put together - making Braverman Gorman Home Secretary!!!!

    Gorman?
    Yes. Braverman as Home Secretary is as ridiculous as if PM Redwood had appointed Theresa Gorman to the role. She is vying with Ree-Mogg in charge of Business Energy and Climate as the "what the actual fuck" appointment.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,877
    Scott_xP said:

    My problem with Liz Truss is not that she is dim, as some people incorrectly suggest.
    ...
    It is that I don’t think she is right to suggest we can simply cut taxes, increase spending and as a result produce growth.

    Isn't this what's called "cognitive dissonance"?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182

    DavidL said:

    No Sunak, no Gove, no Javid, no Hunt, no Barclay, no Shapps, no Patel, no attempt whatsoever to bind the party together and unite the differing factions to deal with the problems ahead. Truss has created her own internal opposition with her first moves and whilst they will all want to be seen to be rallying around now there will be opportunities for mischief soon enough.

    For me, it is a disappointing start.

    No Patel is not a problem. Sunak and hunt were never going to get an invite. Gove and Javid are the big losses on the ability front. Shapps was always a very effective media performer. I wonder who the go-to person will be in the new Cabinet.

    The new AG Michael Ellis was minister for defending the indefensible in Parliament, during the dying days of the Boris administration.

    While that doesn't inspire much faith in his ability to uphold the law, it does give her an option for the Today program.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,757

    Morning all! I'm likely to only dip in and out for a few weeks as my primary client has kicked off a major new project which is taking up most of my time and energy.

    Truss? Lowest ever support of a leader amongst MPs. Lowest voted support of a leader amongst members. And she puts *that* together as a cabinet.

    This is going to be piss funny to watch. Truly is like imagining what cabinet PM John Redwood would have put together - making Braverman Gorman Home Secretary!!!!

    Gorman?
    Yes. Braverman as Home Secretary is as ridiculous as if PM Redwood had appointed Theresa Gorman to the role. She is vying with Ree-Mogg in charge of Business Energy and Climate as the "what the actual fuck" appointment.
    Kit Malthouse at Education actually looks one of the more sensible appointments.

    That's a really, really scary sentence.
  • I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    Given her precarious position not having mass support of part members or even majority support of Tory MPs, I am genuinely surprised not surprised that she has decided the best learning from the Johnson era was throw out the talent and appoint sycophants.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,757

    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    Given her precarious position not having mass support of part members or even majority support of Tory MPs, I am genuinely surprised not surprised that she has decided the best learning from the Johnson era was throw out the talent and appoint sycophants.
    About the only way she could be defended is that a lot of the rejected 'talent' wasn't that good.

    This argument fails when you remember the sycophants are even worse.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,182
    Scott_xP said:

    Unsurprising perhaps, but both Parris and the Fink have columns in The Times today predicting disaster.

    At a time like this a political columnist like me finds himself in a quandary. For months I’ve been arguing with energy and vehemence against the decision the Tory membership made on Monday. I’ve derided the person they chose and predicted her failure. I can hardly pretend not to believe now that this is likely to end horribly.

    and

    My problem with Liz Truss is not that she is dim, as some people incorrectly suggest. Or that she is wooden, when her capturing of the leadership suggests she has strong persuasive skills. Or that she is unlikeable, when I have always found her anything but. It is that I don’t think she is right to suggest we can simply cut taxes, increase spending and as a result produce growth. I don’t think she is correct to ally herself to the right of the Conservative Party. And a policy of no U-turns is only a good one if you are going in the right direction.

    While I agree with them that Truss is likely to be a poor PM, the fate of her government will quite possibly be determined by external events.
    Should Putin's invasion collapse over the winter, for example, then the subsequent bounce in confidence might allow a Spring election and surprise win.

    Things would then end horribly, but five years down the line, and Parris will have retired.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,394
    DougSeal said:

    Foxy said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    When I applied to Medical School in the early Eighties the standard offer varied from CCC to BBB in most places. My offer was BBC, though I actually got AAAB.
    I did the Oxford entrance exam in November/December 1991 and was given a 2 ‘E’ offer after interview. I took that as an invitation and spent the rest of the Sixth Form getting pissed.

    I do wonder what percentage of the increase in top A level grades is grade inflation and what percentage is more motivated or better taught pupils. Has there been any work done on this question?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 32,033
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kamski said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Putin’s energy war profits dwarf cost of Ukraine conflict

    Russia has earned more than enough from President Putin’s energy war on the West to cover the cost of the Ukraine invasion, researchers said yesterday.

    The Kremlin has brought in £141 billion from oil, gas and coal sales since the Russian leader sent tanks across the border six months ago, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (Crea), a Finnish think tank. In comparison, it has spent an estimated £86 billion on the war, it added. The exact figure is a state secret.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putins-energy-war-profits-dwarf-cost-of-ukraine-conflict-sgn32p0qv (£££)

    The article is paywalled, so I can't read it. But there are several things to say about this. Firstly, is that £141 billion earnings, or profit? If earnings, then there will be significant extraction and transport costs. Secondly, there are the lost opportunity costs: the profit from the o&g could have been spent on more productive parts of the economy. Instead, it will be spent on the war, which is fairly profitless atm. Thirdly, there's the future costs: in the fact that they've virtually destroyed most of their market for gas - I doubt many in Europe will be relying on them in the future.
    Fourth, they’ve totally destroyed their reputation internationally, are now a pariah state alongside Iran and North Korea, and their supposedly mighty military has been shown to be a paper tiger bear.
    The West may see Russia as a pariah, but for most people in the world, Russia's reputation remains intact - India/Chinese media dont share our narratives so at a stroke 2.3 billion are on a different song sheet, then across the global south most also see things from a national perspective which is often portrayed as a border conflict... the fact is that Russia's invasion is not a big thing for most of the global population (and this concerns me.....)
    For most people in the world, this is a war that is far away and involving people about which they know little.

    However, many countries will have noted that Russia was willing to turn off energy supplies to exert political pressure, which will discourage them from becoming too dependent. Likewise, it has become increasingly obvious that Russian kit - while cheaper than French or American - has not performed as well.

    So, I think the idea that there will be no consequences for Russia are for the birds.
    Probably many countries will have noted that Russia turned off gas supplies to countries that have sanctioned Russia, so I guess the lesson they will learn is not to put sanctions on their main gas supplier?
    The other obvious lesson is that having nuclear bombs will protect you from direct US attacks.

    I do wonder if one consequence of (a) Russia's invasion, and (b) general Chinese bellicosity, is that Taiwan joins Israel in being a member of the "has nukes, but doesn't talk about it" club.
    Isn't there a suspicion it already has?
    I would not be surprised if TSMC (the world-leading chip manufacturer) have an invasion policy agreed with the Taiwanese government (in return for government funding, etc). If ordered by the Taiwanese government, TSMC will destroy their plants. That does not necessarily mean blowing up the buildings, but there are a heck of a lot of very delicate, expensive and hard-to-replace machines in the plants that would not take a great deal to take out of commission. It would essentially make the plants next to worthless in the short and medium term.

    I could not blame Taiwan for having a 'salted earth' policy, and let it be known to the PRC government. Especially if it makes TSMC and similar industries less lucrative spoils of war.
  • DavidL said:

    Icarus said:

    FPT

    Dynamo said:

    Did Liz Truss get into Merton College, Oxford, with only two A Levels?

    Applications per place for PPE in 2021-22: 8.3.

    However back in the day the system was that Oxford would do their own admissions testing 9 months before the public exams and if you passed that, you'd only have to get two Es (E being the lowest possible pass) to get your place. I think this was done to show Oxford's contempt for the public system.
    No, 2 Es was to qualify for the Local Authority Grant - nothing to do with attitude to the public system. As you observe most got As.
    Back in 1966 my Oxford college took more notice of my 7th term Oxford exams to offer me a place. They already knew my Maths , Physics, Chemistry A levels results: E, B, C. Whilst there I was President of Oxford University Liberal Club. I have not yet been asked to form a government.
    B, C and E ?

    Are you a member of the Royal Family ?
    My son got the equivalent of 4A*s in the Scottish equivalent to A levels and I suspect he was not that unusual in his cohort. IIRC his offer was A*AA. This is what the great inflation has done.
    Grade inflation so that everyone now gets As is mainly a consequence of adding better teaching to a simplified syllabus. Modern teaching is better informed by psychology. The syllabus in some subjects has been pared down so much that degree courses in those subjects need to run for an extra year to compensate. Whether grade inflation matters depends what exams are for, and no-one can agree on that.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,572

    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    Given her precarious position not having mass support of part members or even majority support of Tory MPs, I am genuinely surprised not surprised that she has decided the best learning from the Johnson era was throw out the talent and appoint sycophants.
    There was very little talent to throw out, so I'm not too worried on that score. But yes, it's a small, ultra-loyal coterie.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,192
    Column - the story of Truss government will be a constant struggle between what she actually believes and what events require her to do https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/07/liz-truss-power-markets-winter-strife
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,394

    I don't know if I'm disappointed by Truss's first cabinet. Uninspired would probably be a better word. I can see there's some sense in gathering a group of ultra-loyalists, with 2 years to implement what hopefully will be a radical programme, you can't really afford protracted debate or Ministers kite flying or showboating, or indeed starting informal leadership campaigns.

    How can they implement a radical programme completely different from the one they were elected on? What happened to respecting the will of the people?
This discussion has been closed.